- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:22:22 -0700
- To: liam@w3.org
- Cc: "public-microxml (public-microxml@w3.org)" <public-microxml@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPJCua1O1XZTcp6Hb+L=B3eUu71QqshBchL89GfGntnio9VKnw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2012-11-17 at 13:27 -0700, Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > > > (a) <e a="x"/>, or > > > > > > (b) <e a="x/"> > > > I prefer (a) since it's the likeliest interpretation of the author's > > intention. > > <p><a href=/socks/>more interesting articles</a></p> > > (a) is not unreasonable; a better implementation would look ahead and > find the </a>, although in HTML one could perhaps omit the </a> because > of the </p> and have the "right thing" happen, because of the > domain-specific knowledge in the parser. (b) is the right answer here of > course. > Nice, contrived example, but note my use of "likeliest." I stand by my characterization. > Since MicroXML is/was aimed at Web usage, I think (b) the better choice, > *or* build-in to the parser a list of empty HTML elements and use (a) > for those and (b) for the rest. > I think it's fair to agree to disagree (for my part I agree with others who have repudiated the HTML5 insanity), and the most important thing is that the behavior is documented. -- Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.com http://wearekin.org http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/ http://copia.ogbuji.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji http://twitter.com/uogbuji
Received on Saturday, 17 November 2012 22:22:51 UTC